To:J. V. STALIN[4]

For Vasilyev

Written:Written December 16, 1912Published:First published in 1960 inIstorichesky ArkhivNo. 2.

      First published as a letter by Lenin in 1964 inCollected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol 48.

      Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg.

      Printed from a copy in Krupskaya’s handwriting.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1977],

      Moscow,Volume 43,

      pages317b-319.Translated:Martin Parker and Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearFriend,

Wereceived all your letters (the last about the “tractability” of
your
			     compatriot[1]regarding No. 16.... Question able, though!) and are replying. Is it
possible that our letters go astray?

1)Forgoodness’ sake, take the most energetic steps to get
				  W.[2]away from Krass and turn it over legally to Muranov, No. 5, and
particularly to take the funds and the subscription money. Without this we
are lost. Besides to allow the abuses to go on would be criminal.

2)Arrangea meeting over there of all six before they have time to
scatter. There is plenty of time now; they will manage to do everything
after the meeting as well.

3)Besure to get the six to publish a statement in W. (even the five,
at a pinch; we cannot delay any longer and wait).

4)Impressit finally and seriously upon
			      Shibayev[3]and all his colleagues that they must write here twice a week and
correspond conscientiously. Without thisit is impossibleto work
together.

5)Thesame applies to Vetrov. He has not written once, and he could
easily have sent even the text of the liquidators’ declaration. This is
inexcusable.

6)Didyou get the draft resolutions for Misha’s collegium? Do your
level best to get them adopted.

Theletters were sent mainly to the bank address. The draft leaflet, to
the other, Shibayev address. Reply at once, if only in a few words, to
acknowledge receipt of this letter.

P.S.Just learned of the defeat.

Youmust get Misha’s collegium to adopt a resolutionagainst(the one No. 3 had), with the addition that the decision of the Duma group
is a decision of seven semi-Party people, and circulate it in the
districts. If even the base resolution of the 7 Mensheviks for Jagiello
(and for the Bund) does not finally impel No. 6 to join us, the five must
speak out in W. and speak out verysharply.

Ifthe resolution about Jagiello was adopted under such circumstances
as Rusanov’s not yet having arrived or therebeing no certainty about his not being a Social-Democrat, then the 7 simply
fooled the 6, picked their pockets. In Rusanov’s place, on arriving later,
I would not have joined the Social-Democratic Duma group and would have
raised a terrific row.

Butif it was known that Rusanov was not a Social-Democrat, then it was
wrong to accept the base resolution without a protest.

Atany rateI would advise the Petersburg Committee to adopt a
resolution on approximately these lines (repeat the resolution which No. 3
has):

ThePetersburg Committee strongly condemns the resolution of the
7 members of the Duma group who:
a) did not obtain exact information about the Social-Democratic workers in
Warsaw;
b) made no mention in the resolution of theprotestof all the
Polish Social-Democrats against Jagiello;
c) made no mention of the two (out of three) electors from the Warsaw
workers;
d) represented the bourgeois vote for the P.P.S. as evidence of “the
growth of political consciousness among the bourgeoisie”, whereas it could
only be a matter of an honest man gaining by two thieves falling out;
e) deduced Jagiello’s Social-Democratism from his “statement” and from
the bloc of a section of the Social-Democrats with a non-Social-Democratic
partyagainstthe Polish Social-Democrats;
f) and what is most important—drew anincredible distinctionbetween “questions of the internal life of Social-Democracy” and
“questions of political activity in the Duma, therebyencouragingtheseparationof the latter from the former”.

ThePetersburg Committee condemns those who have taken such an
anti-Party step and thereby divorced them selves from the “internal life
of Russian Social-Democracy”.

[1]Areference to N. S. Chkheidze.—Ed.

[2]Areference to Pravda.—Ed.

[3]Evidentlya reference to A. Y. Badayev.—Ed.

[4]LettersNos. 262 and 264 were published in 1960 in the journalIstorichesky Arkhiv(Historical Archives) No. 2 as having been
written by Nadezhda Krupskaya.

Inpreparing Vol. 48 ofCollected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed.,
for the press it was established that they had been written by Lenin but,
for reasons of secrecy, had been copied by Krupskaya in invisible ink
between the lines of letters sent openly through the mail.